Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Question about depot numbers

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Tech Support >> Question about depot numbers Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Question about depot numbers - 8/27/2008 1:59:36 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
Just a quick question.

Who decided to reduce Austrian depots from 9 as it is in EIA, down to 7 ?
Russia & Spain are reduced from 8 to 7 compared to EIA.


I dont see any other nations depots changed.
So wondering if its on purose or mistakes ?

Its quite massive change, when you dont even have ally pay supply.

Regards
Bresh

< Message edited by bresh -- 8/27/2008 2:07:27 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/27/2008 2:27:05 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Bresh:

We did this to align the number of depots to the EiH map which is the map that we are using. This would keep the supply chain limitations unchanged.

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 2
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/27/2008 4:18:17 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
Ehm, so reduce Austrias number of depots by more than 20% ?
I honestly cant see, how the new map should influense # depots.
Prussia and France are not reduced ? Its the same Map they use ?

Spain and Russia 12.5% reduced is bad enough.

I guess it costs 1 depot pr "new" minor, thats a pretty bad deal if i might say so. 
Or, nahh, cant be, Turkey is not reduced in depots, but has 1 minor.

Does EIH really drop all those depots for each MP, or was it the developmentteam ?
I dont have any eih-resources to check.

Regards
Bresh 

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 3
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/27/2008 5:14:27 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
Marshall,

So I take it that in the classic EiA scenario these depots will be here again?

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 4
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/27/2008 9:59:19 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
Actually, as I recall, every power had 8 depots except France (9) and Turkey (7). My memory might be bad, though, but I'm sure that only two powers (Fr and Tu) were different than the others.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 5
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/28/2008 3:00:36 AM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
This is a quote i found in a EIH-forum, its about the 1792 scenario though, but i see no reason why depot number would be different in 1805 scenario.

quote:


eih] Re: depots

Major Power Depots:

Austria has "traditionally" had a large pool of depots - in the original EiA they were given 9 (more than anyone else). The reasoning for this is that historically Austria had a superb supply system, and often ended up paying the supply for the coalition armies.

Britain seems over-stocked - 7 should suffice, particularly with 3 for the New World.  

Ottomans should probably only have 6 depots, to represent their backward supply system.  

Spain, likewise, should be dropped to 6 depots - they're at best unmotivated.

The US, with their extreme military neglect should have 6 at the most, maybe only 5.

Some of the Kingdoms seem overstocked as well:  

Barbary Coast is another backward state - I suggest cutting them to only 1 depot.  

I'd cut the Mamlukes as well, but for their fleet - they should have the option of sea supply.

The Papal States is hardly a military power - remove their depot.  

Libya (which I'll further chastise in another e-mail) shouldn't have any either.  

Poland and Sweden seem to have too many depots - compare to the German Confederation - I suggest that they be reduced to 2.


Regards
Bresh

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 6
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/28/2008 9:18:11 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
In the counter mix of EiA, Austria has 9 depots. Some confusion comes from the setup of the 1805 campaign, in which Austria is allowed to place only 7 depots at the start, but also note that in Jan 1805 France can only start with 4 depots and Britain 2 (also Prussia 5, Russia 6, Spain and Turkey 2).

Marshall's point above is that, in EiA, reinforcements may be placed in any corps that is on or adjacent to a depot that is within a 3 depot chain of the home country (or the minor power owning the reinforcements being placed). In EiANW, reinforcements may be placed in any corps that is on or adjacent to a depot within a 3 depot chain of any controlled territory of the major power including any of its conquered minors or free states. Hence it makes sense to reduce the number of depots.

_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 7
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/28/2008 11:27:26 AM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

In the counter mix of EiA, Austria has 9 depots. Some confusion comes from the setup of the 1805 campaign, in which Austria is allowed to place only 7 depots at the start, but also note that in Jan 1805 France can only start with 4 depots and Britain 2 (also Prussia 5, Russia 6, Spain and Turkey 2).

Marshall's point above is that, in EiA, reinforcements may be placed in any corps that is on or adjacent to a depot that is within a 3 depot chain of the home country (or the minor power owning the reinforcements being placed). In EiANW, reinforcements may be placed in any corps that is on or adjacent to a depot within a 3 depot chain of any controlled territory of the major power including any of its conquered minors or free states. Hence it makes sense to reduce the number of depots.


When you reduce one nation 20%, 2 other 12% but leave the rest, it really cant be cause of reinforcements. Then all nations would have to drop depots.

So that can not be the reason..

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 8
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/28/2008 12:44:56 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

Ehm, so reduce Austrias number of depots by more than 20% ?
I honestly cant see, how the new map should influense # depots.
Prussia and France are not reduced ? Its the same Map they use ?

Spain and Russia 12.5% reduced is bad enough.

I guess it costs 1 depot pr "new" minor, thats a pretty bad deal if i might say so. 
Or, nahh, cant be, Turkey is not reduced in depots, but has 1 minor.

Does EIH really drop all those depots for each MP, or was it the developmentteam ?
I dont have any eih-resources to check.

Regards
Bresh 


The number of depots are the same as EiH3.0.




_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 9
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/28/2008 12:46:56 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

In the counter mix of EiA, Austria has 9 depots. Some confusion comes from the setup of the 1805 campaign, in which Austria is allowed to place only 7 depots at the start, but also note that in Jan 1805 France can only start with 4 depots and Britain 2 (also Prussia 5, Russia 6, Spain and Turkey 2).

Marshall's point above is that, in EiA, reinforcements may be placed in any corps that is on or adjacent to a depot that is within a 3 depot chain of the home country (or the minor power owning the reinforcements being placed). In EiANW, reinforcements may be placed in any corps that is on or adjacent to a depot within a 3 depot chain of any controlled territory of the major power including any of its conquered minors or free states. Hence it makes sense to reduce the number of depots.


Del is spot on here guys. If/When we do a classic scenario with the original map then I will adjust the depot numbers accordingly.



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 10
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/28/2008 2:07:51 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

In the counter mix of EiA, Austria has 9 depots. Some confusion comes from the setup of the 1805 campaign, in which Austria is allowed to place only 7 depots at the start, but also note that in Jan 1805 France can only start with 4 depots and Britain 2 (also Prussia 5, Russia 6, Spain and Turkey 2).

Marshall's point above is that, in EiA, reinforcements may be placed in any corps that is on or adjacent to a depot that is within a 3 depot chain of the home country (or the minor power owning the reinforcements being placed). In EiANW, reinforcements may be placed in any corps that is on or adjacent to a depot within a 3 depot chain of any controlled territory of the major power including any of its conquered minors or free states. Hence it makes sense to reduce the number of depots.


Del is spot on here guys. If/When we do a classic scenario with the original map then I will adjust the depot numbers accordingly.




So in what ways, does Russia, Spain and Austria benefit more from the new map compared to other nations ? When the reinforcement part is a rule all nations follow.

Regards
Bresh

< Message edited by bresh -- 8/28/2008 2:08:45 PM >

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 11
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/28/2008 4:38:41 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

In the counter mix of EiA, Austria has 9 depots. Some confusion comes from the setup of the 1805 campaign, in which Austria is allowed to place only 7 depots at the start, but also note that in Jan 1805 France can only start with 4 depots and Britain 2 (also Prussia 5, Russia 6, Spain and Turkey 2).

Marshall's point above is that, in EiA, reinforcements may be placed in any corps that is on or adjacent to a depot that is within a 3 depot chain of the home country (or the minor power owning the reinforcements being placed). In EiANW, reinforcements may be placed in any corps that is on or adjacent to a depot within a 3 depot chain of any controlled territory of the major power including any of its conquered minors or free states. Hence it makes sense to reduce the number of depots.


Del is spot on here guys. If/When we do a classic scenario with the original map then I will adjust the depot numbers accordingly.




So in what ways, does Russia, Spain and Austria benefit more from the new map compared to other nations ? When the reinforcement part is a rule all nations follow.

Regards
Bresh


I don't think they do??? There is no singular benefit that we planned or are aware of. We simply aligned the number of depots to the map that we used for balance reasons. The EiH3.0 was a tested and proven system balance-wise. changing these depot numbers could have thrown that off.



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 12
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/28/2008 5:06:06 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

Ehm, so reduce Austrias number of depots by more than 20% ?
I honestly cant see, how the new map should influense # depots.
Prussia and France are not reduced ? Its the same Map they use ?

Spain and Russia 12.5% reduced is bad enough.

I guess it costs 1 depot pr "new" minor, thats a pretty bad deal if i might say so. 
Or, nahh, cant be, Turkey is not reduced in depots, but has 1 minor.

Does EIH really drop all those depots for each MP, or was it the developmentteam ?
I dont have any eih-resources to check.

Regards
Bresh 


The number of depots are the same as EiH3.0.





The REAL PROBLEM is uncovered. 99% of the threads in this forum and all EiANW forums can be explained by this simple statement.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 13
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/28/2008 5:20:12 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
 
IF EIH 3.0 was so good and balanced, why did they head on and made new versions ?
From what i could tell from one EIH forum they appearently "re-introduced" 9 depots to Austria ?

EIH had the reputation about trying to be more historical, but then it sounds weird if they would reduce the most effective supply system around.(Austria's).

Sorry Marshall, but its your statements, you said and this was confusing to me.
. The reducement is due to the map, although the map is the same for all nations, so why the difference..
. Del, stated and you agreed it was cause of how reinforcement works in EIANW, but it works the same for all nations .. Russia,Austria & Spain dont differ from that.

So EIH 3.0 is to blame.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 14
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/28/2008 5:50:25 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
Empires in Harms was simply 1 groups (or 1 persons) idea of a mod. The only difference is that the mod got published and now, somehow, that guy got his horrible, horrible hands on this game. How?? I HAVE NO IDEA.

Mods are just that: mods. EiH was NOT playtested thoroughly for game balance and still has not been. They make new versions simply to "mod" some more. Modders love to mod and that's what they do, which is great for them but they should have never been allowed to get their hands on this game.

Modding for this game should have taken place in 1 way and 1 way only: EDITOR. This game should have been Empires in Arms (er, like the title that Matrix so snakingly gave it). The EDITOR should have let the mods have at this game. This game should not have been a "mod" from the start.

< Message edited by NeverMan -- 8/28/2008 5:51:05 PM >

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 15
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/28/2008 8:58:08 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

 
IF EIH 3.0 was so good and balanced, why did they head on and made new versions ?
From what i could tell from one EIH forum they appearently "re-introduced" 9 depots to Austria ?

EIH had the reputation about trying to be more historical, but then it sounds weird if they would reduce the most effective supply system around.(Austria's).

Sorry Marshall, but its your statements, you said and this was confusing to me.
. The reducement is due to the map, although the map is the same for all nations, so why the difference..
. Del, stated and you agreed it was cause of how reinforcement works in EIANW, but it works the same for all nations .. Russia,Austria & Spain dont differ from that.

So EIH 3.0 is to blame.

Regards
Bresh


They went on because nothing is perfect and there is ALWAYS room to improve BUT at the time of our initial design for the "Napoleonic Wars" (Original Game) we had spoken with Michael Treasure (Creator/Moder of EiH) and had agreed to use EiH3.0 which was the current version back then. I really spent little time evaluating the number of depots but the testers did mention that we should use the same number of depots as was in EiH3.0 due to the fact that if you give more then supply chains might allow people to invade MPs that might otherwise not be possible with fewer depots.





_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 16
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/28/2008 9:11:03 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Empires in Harms was simply 1 groups (or 1 persons) idea of a mod. The only difference is that the mod got published and now, somehow, that guy got his horrible, horrible hands on this game. How?? I HAVE NO IDEA.

Mods are just that: mods. EiH was NOT playtested thoroughly for game balance and still has not been. They make new versions simply to "mod" some more. Modders love to mod and that's what they do, which is great for them but they should have never been allowed to get their hands on this game.

Modding for this game should have taken place in 1 way and 1 way only: EDITOR. This game should have been Empires in Arms (er, like the title that Matrix so snakingly gave it). The EDITOR should have let the mods have at this game. This game should not have been a "mod" from the start.


I hear your beef, Neverman and I understand. If I had to go back and do this again then I would do the classic first no doubt. Much of what I thought would be great actually sucked and much of what I hated turned out great LOL! I simply picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue! :-0

There are others like you and this is the reason that we will probably do the classic scenario.





_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 17
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/28/2008 9:13:49 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
I hear your beef, Neverman and I understand. If I had to go back and do this again then I would do the classic first no doubt. Much of what I thought would be great actually sucked and much of what I hated turned out great LOL! I simply picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue! :-0

There are others like you and this is the reason that we will probably do the classic scenario.






The funny part is I remember way back when being dogged out for thinking this.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 18
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/28/2008 10:18:38 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
At least the classic scenario would not be a fresh start. Could you guys wait until 2012 for it? LOL!
There were actually more people in favor (More vocal people that is) of the EiH rule set but what has happened is that the game's release has brought the loyal purists out of the woodwork which is good IMO but like I've said before (And will again) the first wagon across the river gets the most arrows :-)




_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 19
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/29/2008 2:55:06 AM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

 
IF EIH 3.0 was so good and balanced, why did they head on and made new versions ?
From what i could tell from one EIH forum they appearently "re-introduced" 9 depots to Austria ?

EIH had the reputation about trying to be more historical, but then it sounds weird if they would reduce the most effective supply system around.(Austria's).

Sorry Marshall, but its your statements, you said and this was confusing to me.
. The reducement is due to the map, although the map is the same for all nations, so why the difference..
. Del, stated and you agreed it was cause of how reinforcement works in EIANW, but it works the same for all nations .. Russia,Austria & Spain dont differ from that.

So EIH 3.0 is to blame.

Regards
Bresh


They went on because nothing is perfect and there is ALWAYS room to improve BUT at the time of our initial design for the "Napoleonic Wars" (Original Game) we had spoken with Michael Treasure (Creator/Moder of EiH) and had agreed to use EiH3.0 which was the current version back then. I really spent little time evaluating the number of depots but the testers did mention that we should use the same number of depots as was in EiH3.0 due to the fact that if you give more then supply chains might allow people to invade MPs that might otherwise not be possible with fewer depots.






Marshall can you please help me fill out how this was created.
As far as i can find EIH maps.
Tyrol Capital in EIH is supposed to be in "EIANW area172 Innsbruck", not as in EIA&EIANW Salzburg...

This could possible be a reason why Austria was reduced in depots, since it enables a possible supply line from Innsbruck to Freiburg, and from Freiburg to Luxenburg. And as you wrote game tested.

But then in your EIANW map you moved the capital ? Meaning Austria needs 1 more depot to create this same supply line.
Was this also tested by EIH team with only 7 depots ?
Im guessing if they adjusted the EIH-map in a later version, they possible also returned those depots.

But i feel it brings inconsistency to the version flow, if you use 1 setup pool, while using another map.

Regards
Bresh



(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 20
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/29/2008 8:07:26 AM   
eske

 

Posts: 258
Joined: 1/2/2008
Status: offline
The number of depots should obviously be decided on for each scenario.
In the scenario editor.
What is correct, historical, balanced or whatever will always be debatable.

A very important issue in that debate is wether a depot garrison should be able to block a corps.
That is after all a rather important use of depots. Particularly for Austria, facing an enemy with better mobility.
(I think somewhere it was suggested to have an optional rule of "Overwhelming numbers". Very interesting! ).
Another optional rule to consider is the max 4 corps supplied pr. depot limit.

In my experience fewer depots and more difficult supply works to limit the megastacks in the late game. Which gives a more interesting game.

Btw. I think we just saw it as a mistake in the printing of EiA. So we painted that ninth depot green and gave it to Turkey.

/eske

_____________________________

Alea iacta est

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 21
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/29/2008 11:09:21 AM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: eske

The number of depots should obviously be decided on for each scenario.
In the scenario editor.
What is correct, historical, balanced or whatever will always be debatable.

A very important issue in that debate is wether a depot garrison should be able to block a corps.
That is after all a rather important use of depots. Particularly for Austria, facing an enemy with better mobility.
(I think somewhere it was suggested to have an optional rule of "Overwhelming numbers". Very interesting! ).
Another optional rule to consider is the max 4 corps supplied pr. depot limit.

In my experience fewer depots and more difficult supply works to limit the megastacks in the late game. Which gives a more interesting game.

Btw. I think we just saw it as a mistake in the printing of EiA. So we painted that ninth depot green and gave it to Turkey.

/eske


Limiting depot to number of corps it can supply, will mostly benefit France who has the bigger corps.
The big looser will be Turkey.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to eske)
Post #: 22
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/29/2008 11:58:13 AM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 3111
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

In the scenario editor. What is correct, historical, balanced or whatever will always be debatable.


Bingo.

The sooner Marshall releases a scenario editor, the happier everyone will be. Then we can have EiA classic scenarios, EiH variants, mix&match versions, and completely new stuff.

Until then, I'll just sit back with my bag of popcorn and watch the endless "Empires in Arguments" reruns.

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 23
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/29/2008 12:36:16 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

 
IF EIH 3.0 was so good and balanced, why did they head on and made new versions ?
From what i could tell from one EIH forum they appearently "re-introduced" 9 depots to Austria ?

EIH had the reputation about trying to be more historical, but then it sounds weird if they would reduce the most effective supply system around.(Austria's).

Sorry Marshall, but its your statements, you said and this was confusing to me.
. The reducement is due to the map, although the map is the same for all nations, so why the difference..
. Del, stated and you agreed it was cause of how reinforcement works in EIANW, but it works the same for all nations .. Russia,Austria & Spain dont differ from that.

So EIH 3.0 is to blame.

Regards
Bresh


They went on because nothing is perfect and there is ALWAYS room to improve BUT at the time of our initial design for the "Napoleonic Wars" (Original Game) we had spoken with Michael Treasure (Creator/Moder of EiH) and had agreed to use EiH3.0 which was the current version back then. I really spent little time evaluating the number of depots but the testers did mention that we should use the same number of depots as was in EiH3.0 due to the fact that if you give more then supply chains might allow people to invade MPs that might otherwise not be possible with fewer depots.






Marshall can you please help me fill out how this was created.
As far as i can find EIH maps.
Tyrol Capital in EIH is supposed to be in "EIANW area172 Innsbruck", not as in EIA&EIANW Salzburg...

This could possible be a reason why Austria was reduced in depots, since it enables a possible supply line from Innsbruck to Freiburg, and from Freiburg to Luxenburg. And as you wrote game tested.

But then in your EIANW map you moved the capital ? Meaning Austria needs 1 more depot to create this same supply line.
Was this also tested by EIH team with only 7 depots ?
Im guessing if they adjusted the EIH-map in a later version, they possible also returned those depots.

But i feel it brings inconsistency to the version flow, if you use 1 setup pool, while using another map.

Regards
Bresh





Bresh:

Here is where we made our map from. What version maps are you using?










Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 24
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/29/2008 1:15:04 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
These two M.

Source
http://www.boardgaming.info/EIA-archive/charts/blankeihmap.html
And
http://www.boardgaming.info/EIA-archive/charts/map.html

Not sure how i embed it in the post, so attached.

Regards
Bresh






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 25
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/30/2008 3:31:49 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
What maps are those?
Do you have the files that you could send me?



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 26
RE: Question about depot numbers - 8/31/2008 3:21:59 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

What maps are those?
Do you have the files that you could send me?




Im not sure what files you mean ?
Links are from some EIA site i passed by, notiched they had EIH maps, so was gonna print them for when i plan moves, but then i notiched that Tyrol (and Stockholm) looked different.

I know you moved Stockholm on purpose and thats fine, it only affects a minor country, and frozen-winterzone.

But as I tried to describe, maybe the Austria-7 depots in EIH 3.0 is based on Austria having Innsbruck as Tyrol Capital, and not Salzburg.
Moving the Capital might have justified less depots i guess.
If our map is a later EIH version, where Austria had more depots, it could be why they moved the capital to Salzburg.

Last i checked i was still awaiting access to EIH forum, so i only have the resources i can google myself to.

Regards
Bresh

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 27
RE: Question about depot numbers - 9/1/2008 7:50:57 AM   
sw30

 

Posts: 410
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: San Francisco, CA
Status: offline
The top map that Bresh referred to is the one from EIH4.0a, not sure where the bottom one came from.  As far as I know, the 5.x versions moved it back to Salzburg.

_____________________________


(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 28
RE: Question about depot numbers - 9/1/2008 8:50:36 AM   
timewalker03

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 6/9/2003
From: Omaha, NE
Status: offline
Well this argument about the why's and the therefores is old. It is a continual round and round that will go on for as long as the game is supported. When I first came to the board the game was originally going to be EiA not Harm. Then as Marshall stated the loud voices came out championing HARM. The quieter voices wanting EiA just became quiet over time since it always seems the loud minority beats out the quiet majority in the end. I was always hoping for EiA with the naval rules added from the Eratta from the GENERAL magazine.

My gaming group I played with from 1989 to 1992 was a hardcore group. We had some members leave but were replaced by other good players who were dedicated to completing games. We would always try new rules put out in the GENERAL and we found most to be very playable.

In another group I played in during the late 90's we tried the Harm variant for about three weeks. I remember our Harm days ended with this quote from one of the players in the group. "This is the worst piece of SH__ ever greated in the history of war gaming. I hope the creator of this crap falls into a well and somehow finds his way to the bowels of hell where this #%$##%$#%$#%$#^% was created." I believe we all had the same sentiment but were among the quiet majority. Harm sucked then and still does now.

I am with many here who would like the original EiA as the stock game and Harm to be the edited variant. I really wish the focus of the games future would be put into the AI and not so much into the PBEM function of the game. Since playing the AI is most likely the only way a game will ever be completed it would be nice to have a strong opponent and one that will be there a week from now when you are ready to play. I was in 3 PBEM games and had to pull out due to personal reasons which have since been resolved. I know the stress that put on the groups, but we had only played 4 months in one and two in both of the others. All three had been restarts with the original games started in April. I left them all in late July. Each group had a 24hr turnaround per player per turn. SO that means if all players did their turns in that time each phase would take 7 days. 7 days for diplomacy, 7 days for reinforcements, 7 days for naval, etc. you could be looking at two months to complete one game month which was about right for the three games I was in.

I know I am rambling, but perspective seems lost with this game. I really hope sooner than later a great product comes from this. This is just the slowest moving thing I have ever seen from development to gameplay. I am not knocking Marshall on this. I am knocking Matrix though, since they are marketing this game as Empire in Arms and not what it truely is.

(in reply to sw30)
Post #: 29
RE: Question about depot numbers - 9/1/2008 9:00:28 AM   
timewalker03

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 6/9/2003
From: Omaha, NE
Status: offline
One other thing I want to point out. I went back to the original thread when the game was announced. It was stated that they would put out EiA with some Harm features as optional features. Seems that was not 100% accurate.

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Tech Support >> Question about depot numbers Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.523